Philosophy Study Sheet Key Terms Distributive Justice: A form of justice that deals with who should have

what in society and why. Justice that is concerned with the allotment of privileges, duties, goods, in reference to each individual, in the best interest of society. Also can be defined as the fair or equitable division of goods in a community. (ex: economic goods, political goods, position, recognition) Consequentialism/ Consequentialists: Belief in that the morality of your actions is determined by your consequences. Whether your action is right or wrong its determined by the consequences (results) of your actions. The value of an action derives solely from the value of its consequences. You see which actions cause greater good. And you do the thing that creates the greater good. Its a principle of what people should do. (Egalitarian view) Egalitarianism/ Utilitarianism: The political doctrine that holds that all people in a society should have equal rights from birth. Generally it applies to being held equal under the law and society at large. Utilitarians believe that the good in life is represented by happiness. -What is it that we in fact want for its own sake? Utilitarians answer to this question is that happiness and pleasure are instrumental goods, that we want them for their own sake. *Pleasure is the good for Utilitarians. They believe that once you know what the good is, the good is the greatest value. (Arguments against pleasure being the only good in life) 1) pleasure is temporary 2) Animals can have pleasure, therefore this is not a distinguishable factor that sets us apart from these animals, then this is not the sole answer to the good life, since what allows us to find whats good in life, should be relatively human. Contractarians/ Contractarianism: People that support theories that justify moral principles and political choices because they depend on a social contract, involving certain ideal because of lack of ignorance or uncertainty (the veil of ignorance). Contractarians concentrate on the problems that need to be solved when addressing issues of inequality. You have to pretend that in this society you are not going to know what job you will have, what type of education you will receive, etc, therefore this would make you reflect on what type of society you will make? If you didnt know who you were going to be, you would most likely try to create a society that is equal that way no one, including yourself, will end up at a great disadvantage. This represents the veil of ignorance. Veil of Ignorance: It is a method of determining the morality of a certain issue (e.g.

slavery) based upon the following principle: imagine that societal roles were completely re-fashioned and redistributed, and that from behind the veil of ignorance, one does not know what role they will be reassigned. Only then can one truly consider the morality of an issue. For example, whites in the southern United States, pre-Civil War, did indeed condone slavery, but they most likely would not have done so had there been a refashioning of society so that they would not know whether they would be the ones enslaved. n the imaginary society, one might or might not be intelligent, rich, or born into a preferred class. Since one may occupy any position in the society once the veil is lifted, this theory encourages thinking about society from the perspective of all members. The veil of ignorance is part of the long tradition of thinking in terms of a social contract. Libertarians/Libertarianism: Libertarianism is, as the name implies, the belief in liberty. Libertarians believe that each person owns his own life and property, and has the right to make his own choices as to how he lives his life as long as he simply respects the same right of others to do the same. In philosophy, the concept of libertarianism refers to the idea that human free will is a necessary precondition of moral responsibility and, in fact, humans do have this free will. Libertarians believe that if you work for something, and involve labor with it, then its yours- your property. The Greatest Happiness Principle: Principle which utilitarians try to follow. Actions are right in proportion to the happiness they produce. If you are aware of what is good in the world, then you would do more of it. If you are aware of whats bad, you will try to limit it. It suggests doing things that will result in the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. Each person is their own judge when it comes to happiness, but when it comes to the greatest happiness (or felicity, as he called it), a person can really only be so happy if others around them are happy, too. He called this the greatest happiness (or felicity) principle. The greatest happiness depended upon the circumstances, upon the community in which one finds themselves, and -this is the reform impulse -- upon how they sought to maximize harmony, comfort, and happiness with their closest friends and neighbors. In sum: It is the belief, the greatest good, for the greatest number. Happiness= pleasure, unhappiness=pain -exception: Utilitarians believe that you punish if and only if it makes the world better, not for vengeance, or because you think someone deserves it. Two Types of Utilitarians Act Utilitarians: You live your life day to day, analyzing your actions. You question whether this action causes you more happiness or takes away from it. They reanalyze every consequence. You reinvent the wheel every time you add up the consequences of each action. Rule Utilitarians: If we implement a set of rules, how much happiness can we get. Rawls-(Kantian liberal- influence by the work of Kant)

Imagine that you have set for yourself the task of developing a totally new social contract for today's society. How could you do so fairly? Although you could never actually eliminate all of your personal biases and prejudices, you would need to take steps at least to minimize them. Rawls suggests that you imagine yourself in an original position behind a veil of ignorance . Behind this veil, you know nothing of yourself and your natural abilities, or your position in society. You know nothing of your sex, race, nationality, or individual tastes. Behind such a veil of ignorance all individuals are simply specified as rational, free, and morally equal beings. You do know that in the "real world", however, there will be a wide variety in the natural distribution of natural assets and abilities, and that there will be differences of sex, race, and culture that will distinguish groups of people from each other. In this original position , behind the veil of ignorance, what will the rational choice be for fundamental principles of society? The only safe principles will be fair principles, for you do not know whether you would suffer or benefit from the structure of any biased institutions. Indeed the safest principles will provide for the highest minimum standards of justice in the projected society. Rawls argues that in a similar manner, the rational individual would only choose to establish a society that would at least conform to the following two rules: 1) Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive basic liberty compatible with similar liberty for others. 2) Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both: a) reasonably expected to be to everyone's advantage and b) attached to positions and offices open to all. The Difference Principle: The difference principle permits inequalities in the distribution of goods only if those inequalities benefit the worst-off members of society. -A further motivation for the difference principle is this. Risk-minimization is a part of Rawls strategy in setting up the original position. All representatives are supposed to consider worst case scenarios, where on the lifting of the veil of ignorance they discover that they are at the bottom of society. Rawls argues that if this possibility is considered then all representatives will be concerned with ensuring the best possible circumstances for the worst-off members of society. Liberty Principle: "Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties which is compatible with a similar scheme of liberties for all." (basically, liberty for all) *According to Rawls, social contract theories consist of two main parts 1) an original position where people are in a state of nature in which laws didnt exist. 2) lawsprinciples of happiness that we would decided upon.

Key Points with Rawls - veil of ignorance social contract equal liberty the difference principle - liberty principle original position laws what would you do if you were forced to be fair justice is impartial( Rawls believes we may not share this belief in practice, but at least in reflection Nozick Nozick basically tires to respond to Rawls theories. He focuses more on procedural justice. -Procedural justice is concerned with making and implementing decisions according to fair processes. People feel affirmed if the procedures that are adopted treat them with respect and dignity, making it easier to accept even outcomes they do not like. According to him, liberty disrupts patterns as a picture of justice. For Nozick, the first question to ask is the theory of ownership. 1) principle of acquisition 2) principle of transfer Basically saying you acquire things and then you own them, there is nothing else to justice, any interference with this skeleton scheme is injustice.

-He disagrees with Rawls. Rawls believes that justice is a pattern, that justice is determined by having the right pattern, that justice is determined by proper distribution. Nozicks objection to this is that the difference principle may not be an adequate plan for society. He believes that justice is historical and repetitive. What people have is determined by how they get it.did they work for it? And however they end up with whatever they have they do so justly. For Nozick, justice cannot be a pattern because if so its going to be rearranged everyday to get the pattern back. Nozick argued the following- lets say if we followed this difference principle. Lets say the world is equal. So day 1: equality. Then the tall basketball player William Chamberlin takes out a box and tells people to give a $1 to watch him throw a basketball through a hoop. Overtime that box accumulates with money. Then Will Chamberlin, has the upper hand in society with more money. Nozick recognizes that we live in a world where what people possess reflects past injustices. Even though certain forms of discrimination are a thing of the past, many people today continue to benefit from that legacy. Imagine, for example, that your father did not get a well paying job in a steel mill because of his race. My father got the job instead, and as a result was able to save enough to put a down payment on a small bungalow in Wallingford. That bungalow just now happens to be worth about $500,000. Because Wallingford has a larger tax base, I went to a public school with more resources and better teachers. And because I could afford the prep test, I did well on the SATs and received a scholarship from the UW.

Nozick does not deny that these types of legacies are a reality in our society. The problem he confronts is how do we address these harms of the past without creating new harms? According to Nozick, a society cannot unfold history to fairly address the harms (especially distant harms) of the past without creating new injustices. The best that we can do is distribute resources in accordance with . the perceived value of a persons actions and services to others today. In other words, my worth to society ought to be defined by what others are willing to give me in free exchange. Nozick recognizes that his method rewards will inevitably reward (for example) the offspring of thieves, but he cannot think of a just alternative, especially as the original injustices become more remote. It is much easier to force someone to give back a car that they stole than to estimate how differently someones life would have been today if her father had received that bank loan in 1961. The latter event might actually have caused more harm, but what is the fair response? Nozick, doesnt want to know how people got what they have, if they did so freely and just . He doesnt believe that asking questions such as these are useless. He is more interested if people got things freely, and without jeopardizing another persons freedom.

Freeman vs Friedman Milton Friedman: "there is one and only one social responsibility of business--to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition without deception or fraud. -The only social responsibility a law-abiding business has is to maximize profits for the shareholders. -focuses on shareholders exclusively Believes you shouldnt be concerned with social matters or environmental issues, your job is to maximize profits, to make someone else money- that is your obligation and main concern. Supports the idea of the invisible hand, if everyone looks out for their own interest, society would be led by an invisible hand that would eventually fulfill societys desires and lead to the better public good. If you really want to serve the public good, have everyone look out for their own interest, because everyone knows best their own case. Social responsibility comes to the expense of the interest of the shareholders. That by being businessmen you are already fulfilling your social responsibilities you dont have to do anything more. Its a contractual, implicit/explicit obligation.

-in trying to do chartable things, you are refraining from increasing profits. You are spending someone elses money. If you want to be charitable, do it with your own money You are not hired to make social contributions; therefore you are not expected to know what youre doing. It is not your place to try, you wont be any good at it and violating youre promise to shareholders. Corporations are not people. You will be hurting your business in losing concentration from your goals, and trying to do good for society. To a certain extent it is more productive and efficient to be selfish, Your social responsibility is to do all legal things that can increase your profits, even when that legal thing may not be the right thing.

Freemans Argument - Has a stakeholders view rather than solely a shareholder view. - At the heart of this argument its a question of obligation- who do you have an obligation to, and why. Do you have an obligation to some people more than others? Whether these obligations are exclusive, or whether youre going to have obligation with other people as well. - Friedmans argument is that you have made an obligation to the shareholders and that is your duty to keep your promises. Freeman questions how about your duties to those who are not shareholders? Your suppliers, your customers, the people who live around your factories, who are affected by your companies chemicals. - argues that you have many different obligation, to more than one person. Stakeholders includes your stockholders, customers, employees, environment, local communities. - It should be the social responsibility of a company to make sure they pay attention to each of these stakeholders. - Ex: We need clean air and clean water, and if we leave this to the individual interest, then they would individually ignore it, therefore it has to be done collectively. - Freeman is a Kantian - Wrong to a Kantian consists in treating people as a means to an end, rather than an ends to themselves. - Is flexible in terms of how this social responsibility is fulfilled, can be done so in many different ways, but what all these ways will have in common is that you will have obligations to more people besides the stakeholder. - Obligation to shareholders is not exclusive. - - your obligation to stockholders depends on the context, because if you work for McDonalds, where thousands of people own it, you wont feel nor recognize the personal obligation to the stockholder. Peter Singer -drowning child

To challenge my students to think about the ethics of what we owe to people in need, I ask them to imagine that their route to the university takes them past a shallow pond. One morning, I say to them, you notice a child has fallen in and appears to be drowning. To wade in and pull the child out would be easy but it will mean that you get your clothes wet and muddy, and by the time you go home and change you will have missed your first class. I then ask the students: do you have any obligation to rescue the child? Unanimously, the students say they do. The importance of saving a child so far outweighs the cost of getting ones clothes muddy and missing a class, that they refuse to consider it any kind of excuse for not saving the child. Does it make a difference, I ask, that there are other people walking past the pond who would equally be able to rescue the child but are not doing so? No, the students reply, the fact that others are not doing what they ought to do is no reason why I should not do what I ought to do. Once we are all clear about our obligations to rescue the drowning child in front of us, I ask: would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost and absolutely no danger to yourself? Virtually all agree that distance and nationality make no moral difference to the situation. I then point out that we are all in that situation of the person passing the shallow pond: we can all save lives of people, both children and adults, who would otherwise die, and we can do so at a very small cost to us: the cost of a new CD, a shirt or a night out at a restaurant or concert, can mean the difference between life and death to more than one person somewhere in the world and overseas aid agencies like Oxfam overcome the problem of acting at a distance. -Singer, is that when we choose to spend money on luxuries instead of donating to the destitute, we commit wrongs on a par with walking past drowning children. Singers main argument - If we can prevent something bad without sacrificing anything of comparable significance, we ought to do it. - Absolute poverty is bad - There is some absolute poverty we can prevent without sacrificing anything of comparable moral significance.